5/02/2011 @ 11:30AM31,245 views

Killing Bin Laden: Tactical Success, Strategic Failure

Washington’s ten-year quest to neutralize Osama bin Laden has finally born fruit. Even before the infamous author of the 9-11 attacks was cornered and killed this weekend, his terrorist organization had been gradually dismembered by Predator strikes and special-forces operations. The search for bin Laden is a case study in perseverance, one that demanded extraordinary sacrifice from many thousands of warfighters and intelligence operatives, and cost many billions of dollars.

But precisely for that reason, it is hard to take comfort from news that Osama bin Laden is dead. It has taken the world’s greatest military power a decade to track down the tallest man in Afghanistan (and Pakistan), sending an implicit message to like-minded zealots that terrorism is a remarkably effective tool for changing the world. The on-going impact of Al Qaeda’s thinly resourced foot-soldiers on global security has to be a worrisome sign in a world where new technology is empowering extremists of every stripe.

Within minutes after it was disclosed that bin Laden had been taken down in an affluent neighborhood 35 miles from Pakistan’s capital, pundits were already asking the question of how much the Pakistani intelligence service knew about his whereabouts, and for how long. We’ll probably never know the answer to that question, but the fact that recriminations between partners in the counter-terror campaign are likely to persist long after bin Laden is gone underscores the effectiveness of ruthless, elusive actors in undermining democratic governments. It turns out that democracies just aren’t very good at dealing with enemies who refuse to play by the rules.

But the damage that bin Laden’s tactics have done to America’s ties with other governments pales in comparison with what we have allowed him to do to our own economy and society. The years before 9-11 now look like a golden age of American affluence and influence that collapsed with startling rapidity in the aftermath of the terrorist attacks. We cannot blame Al Qaeda for the dot.com bust, the sub-prime meltdown, and the fact that America’s share of global economic output has fallen from a third to a quarter of the total in only ten years, but there is good reason to believe that the distraction of policymakers by overseas threats had something to do with Washington’s economic mis-steps in the first decade after what had come to be called the American Century. And we most definitely can blame Al Qaeda for a sizable chunk of the federal government’s debt, since the war in Afghanistan was a direct response to 9-11 and the war in Iraq would have been politically unsalable without it.

Beyond that, the fear that has informed America’s domestic security arrangements and self-image since 9-11 reflects just how hard it is to maintain an open society when a handful of committed crazies are determined to force change. Every month brings us new images of how the threat of extremist violence has torn our social fabric, from the photos of tortured detainees at Abu Graib prison to the viral video of a small child being frisked as she boarded a recent airline flight. In general, we have managed to maintain our humanity and respond to provocations both at home and abroad in a measured, proportional way, but there is little doubt the terrorists have changed how we think and how we behave.

So while I share the widespread admiration for the skill and precision with which Navy Seals managed to dispatch the world’s most notorious terrorist, I’m also dismayed by how long it took to get him and disturbed by the message that the resilience of his organization sends to the rest of the world. We have defeated a terrorist in the tactical sense but failed in the strategic sense by allowing him to demonstrate the limits of American power. When future historians recount what happened to America in the first decade of the new millennium, they will point to the attacks Osama bin Laden mounted on 9-11 as a turning point in global history, and see in Washington’s response a partial explanation for the nation’s subsequent decline.

Loren Thompson is Chief Operating Officer of the non-profit Lexington Institute and Chief Executive Officer of the private consultancy Source Associates. The Lexington Institute receives money from many of the nation’s leading defense contractors, and Source Associates provides technical services to companies in the industry.

Post Your Comment

Post Your Reply

Forbes writers have the ability to call out member comments they find particularly interesting. Called-out comments are highlighted across the Forbes network. You'll be notified if your comment is called out.

Comments

I agree with your conclusions but for entirely different reasons. Osama Bin Ladan was but one man, an important man but really more a pawn than a player. He was important because more powerful forces found him useful. The CIA found him an effective leader in their war against the Red Army in Afghanistan. Pakistan’s military and intelligence found him and effective leader in their campaign to gain control of Afghanistan through their surrogate, the Taliban. Finally, many people is the Muslim world found him an effective representative of the wide-spread dissatisfaction places like north Africa and south-west Asia. As we continue to witness throughout that part of the world, people are rising up against unpopular governments and taking the unhappiness out into the streets. The masses of people who are leading revolutions in Egypt, Tunisia, Yemen, &c. has an approach that is far more positive and creative than Osama Bin Ladan’s backwards and negative approach but both approaches are a response to the underlying anger and dismay at the the state of the world.

This is why I think that the killing Osama Bin Ladan is only a tactical victory. Strategically, it has little significance.

Though I agree with much of what you say, I believe that we are progressing in our strategic approach. I do not believe that the world suddenly changed on 9/11. Rather, the events of 9/11 forced us to realize that we were under attack. But the roots of the attack were multiple and they extend far back. Just to mention a few issues 1) Though our approach to the Cold War appears to have been successful, it convinced us that conventional military power was sufficient for our needs. We then thought that all we needed was the ability to “project” our power into multiple theaters simultaenously 2)Many alliances made during the Cold War, including the alliance OBL, were probably ill-advised and were not even effective at that time 3) We failed to address our energy issues. Apparently we felt we could always finesse the Middle East leaders into supplying the world for a price. We failed to realize how much economic power we were placing in the hands of rules who had little respect for either democratic traditions or our notion of a true republican form of government 4) After over-empowering Middle Eastern tyrants with oil money, we also failed to broker a solution to the Arab-Israeli conflict. Possibly the economic empowerment of the Middle Eastern rulers actually made such a solution impossible (but I do not know that for sure) 5) We failed to realize the potential strengths of terrorist attacks because we thought we could totally destroy terrorist bases at will. Thus we failed to develop other strategies.

After reflecting upon the above mentioned failures of our strategic thinking over the years, I believe that it was inevitable that someone would attack us in the way that OBL did on 9/11. After the attack we believed that we could win by “projecting” our military force. Instead, we achieved pyrrhic victories (“mission accomplished”). But more recently we have improved our abilities to a) conduct counter-insurgency b) utilize intelligence even in non-traditional situations such as the OBL assassination demonstrates and c) started to come to the realization that we need to look at more than just military power to defend our natoin—we need to embrace and understanding of the economic, social, political, cultural, religious and other aspects of our situations. This newer thinking has come from Defense Secretary Gates, Leon Panetta, General Petraeus, others (possibly including President Obama). The recent tactical success of the mission to get OBL is, in part, the product of fresh strategic thinking. Whether we can apply such thinking on a massive global scale is another question. But I think we are beginning to turn the corner and move toward more productive approaches.

Instead to writing brainy articles regarding the difficulties of the US to chase down an outlaw, who was helped by a lot of individuals and Pakistan, you should acknowlwdge WHY such happened, between other because things as mentioned below did not happened!!:

–Bin Laden was all the time in contact with his family. By capturing and submitting them to torture they would found him quickly

–By rounding up the known group of Pakistani leaders which denied to help and shooting one per day until the desird result was achieved

Of course, this would be nothing new. Any nation or government with enough power could have done this, as the Nazis and Communists did in Europe.

So, your REAL complaint is that the US Government has not followed above time honored methods. So, why do are honest enough to say so??

Of course, it is open to discussion if as example torture is justified in extreme cases as long a the affected is already a proven criminal or putting in jail some without proper judgement people

In any case, as liberals plea, granting constutional privilleges to such outrageous cases is certainly not the right think to do.

Osamas death was overdue, but his legacy of hate will live on as there is a long line up for the 72 virgins. We in North America could ignore that whole region as we are doing with many other hell holes if it were not for our fossil fuel addiction that we have ignored for a long time and are still not willing to cure. Lets look to Austria, a country with no fossil fuel to speak of and how they cut fossil fuel use by 25% over the last 15 years and not in transport but with Bioheat and Hydro-solar. Let us stop talking and studying the options to death and get on with the job and in the near future we may be able to ignore the Osamas of the world and live sustainable for ever.

The most dangerous Muslim did not live in Pakistan. He lives right here in the United States. No I am not going to say Obama. The Imem’s name is Fethulla Gulen. He controls the media in Turkey the education and judiciary. He wants to do the same thing here in America. So far he 122 charter schools, Tv stations, publishing firms, and more he is worth 52 Billion dollars and a powerful lobbying group known as the Rumi Forum. Many politicians are now being called out for unethical behaviors and there favoritism with F Gulen and his group. look it up!!!

Osama bin Laden was undoubtedly watching America turn its back on its own freedoms and values with great satisfaction in the years leading up to his death and most likely regarded that as his greatest Mission Accomplished.

Our output has fallen as a percentage because others have grown. Other countries can grow faster than us because we have the highest tax rates in the industrialized world. We have irrational energy and environmental regulation. We have the worst legal/litigation environment in the world.

In 2006 we turned over Congress to the socialists. In 2008 our voters handed executive power to a marxist/socialist.

Would it not be fair to point out that there were two different administrations involved in this hunt? The first had almost 8 years to get the job done. The current did it in 2 and 1/2 years. This is like pointing out that it took ten years to turn around a company while failing to note that the company turned around under a new CEO.